https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(herrold@owlriver. |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||psab...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i...@cicku.me
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #7 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
License is GPLv2+ according to AUTHORS.rst
Spec URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/dl/0.13-2/dl.spec
SRPM URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/dl/0.13-2/dl-0.13-2.fc20.src.rpm
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #8 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
Unbundle system provided php-phpass and php-php-gettext
rpmlint now shows:
Checking: dl-0.13-3.fc20.noarch.rpm
dl-0.13-3.fc20.src.rpm
dl.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #9 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
as to comment 8, (symlinks) manual 'Requires' for php-phpass and
php-php-gettext, to ensure they are present may be sufficient -- and I note the
.spec file contains such
ok as to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #10 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ diff -u dl.spec-3 dl.spec-4
--- dl.spec-3 2014-08-01 10:51:41.452383001 -0400
+++ dl.spec-4 2014-08-01 10:50:28.542383001 -0400
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
Name:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #11 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
not that this works ... wonder how to fix this
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ rpmlint -V ; rpmlint
/home/herrold/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dl-0.13-4.orc6.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #12 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
next review item: License file in %doc
%doc COPYING
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #13 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
6 Spec file in American English
sight reviewed --
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #14 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
7. 'legible' spec file
sight reviewed -- nice and clean
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #15 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
sha256 verfication
no upstream sums, signed available
6ee2813b39b038624c7c9ae23d4adb62a2d4383dbe71594fdcdf407fe6fa37b7 dl-0.13.zip
inspected:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #16 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
(In reply to R P Herrold from comment #11)
not that this works ... wonder how to fix this
My opinion is that this is a valid warning to consider, which we did, so we can
move on...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #17 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
Created attachment 92
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=92action=edit
clearsigned sha256sun of the sources
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #18 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
9. SRPM must build a binary
PASS (we were, after all able to run rpmlint against it
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #19 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
10. notation as to non-working arches
this yields a noarch file, so not applicable
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #20 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
11. call out all BR's save standard build environment members
no unusual requirements
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #21 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
12. locale handling
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ grep locale dl.spec-3
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ rpm -qlp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #22 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
13. library handling
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ rpm -qlp
/home/herrold/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/dl-0.13-3.orc6.noarch.rpm | grep lib
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$
so not applicable
PASS
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #23 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
15. Reloactable / Prefix special casing
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ grep -i prefix dl.spec-3
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$
not applicable
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #24 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
16. no bundled system libraries
no libraries at all
also php module was unbundled earlier
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #25 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
17. if relocatable, justify special handling
as above - -not applicable
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #26 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
ACTION ITEM
18. A package must own all directories that it creates
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ grep -i mkdir dl.spec-3
mkdir -p ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_datadir}/dl
mkdir -p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #27 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
(In reply to R P Herrold from comment #26)
ACTION ITEM
18. A package must own all directories that it creates
Greg -- it seems that a:
Requires: httpd
... or 'webserver'
and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #28 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
fair enough -- 18. A package must own
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #29 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the
rpnbuild flags these, and is not doing so here, so
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #30 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
20. Permissions on files must be set properly
rpmlint flags deviations, -- we have the one known and excepted deviation for
privacy purposes
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #31 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
21. consistently use packaging macros
spec file sight reviewed and clean per prior steps
no variations from consistency noted
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #32 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
22. The package must contain code, or permissable content
'permissable' so spelled in the wiki -- hmmm
it does -- this is a CGI script add on, well licensed for software freedom
PASS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #34 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
23. Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage
inapplicable
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #35 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
24. %doc content must not affect the runtime
it does not
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #36 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
QUERY
actually as to # 24 it would appear that sub-packages for the CLI client, and
for Thunderbird are appropriate
/usr/share/doc/dl-0.13/client/dl-cli.py
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #33 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
typo reported for fix
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1126029
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #37 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
(In reply to R P Herrold from comment #36)
QUERY
actually as to # 24 it would appear that sub-packages for the CLI client,
and for Thunderbird are appropriate
Greg -- what think
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #38 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
as to splitting out; * nod *
The alternative answer would be to add a packaging conditional and skip around
the sub-packages when 2.7 is not in the 'stock' environment
I see this,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #39 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
Created attachment 923401
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=923401action=edit
patch, adding a conditional CLI sub-package
per prior comment
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #40 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
as to 24 (subpackages), either way, the present packaging is fine and so:
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #41 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
25. Static libraries must be in a -static package
not applicable
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #42 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
26. Development files must be in a -devel package
not applicable
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #43 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
27. devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency
Not applicable here
that said, the proposed patch for the -cli subpackage also carries this
PASS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #44 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives
not applicable as a noarch package
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #45 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
29. GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file
presently not applicable; might become so if / when the wx or Thinderbird
packages are added
PASS
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #46 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
30. Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages
seems to be fine
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #47 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
31. All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8
seems to be unexceptional and fine
PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #48 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
At this point, all the MUST items on the checklist page seems to be satisfied.
I am not formally 'approved' in F circles to do reviews, but will ping for a
sponsor to look this over.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #49 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
(In reply to R P Herrold from comment #48)
At this point, all the MUST items on the checklist page seems to be
satisfied. I am not formally 'approved' in F circles to do reviews, but
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #50 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
abadger1999 was kind enough to sponsor me into 'packager' so I think I can
approve this now
now to figure out how to DO that in fact
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|herr...@owlriver.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|herr...@owlriver.com|gbai...@lxpro.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #53 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: dl
Short Description: Download Ticket Service
Upstream URL: http://www.thregr.org/~wavexx/software/dl/
Owners: gbailey herrold
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #54 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
thank you for the co-maintainer addition -- I will probably poke at the other
two sub-packages once it gets into the stream
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #55 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #1 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
Fixed some rpmlint errors/warnings.
Spec URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/dl/0.12-2/dl.spec
SRPM URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/dl/0.12-2/dl-0.12-2.fc20.src.rpm
The only error
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #2 from Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com ---
Updated for DL 0.13, released today.
Spec URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/dl/0.13-1/dl.spec
SRPM URL: https://gbailey.fedorapeople.org/dl/0.13-1/dl-0.13-1.fc20.src.rpm
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #3 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ rpmlint
/home/herrold/rpmbuild/SRPMS/dl-0.13-1.orc6.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #4 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
naming is acceptable (albeit short, but that matches upstream)
so: naming PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #5 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
spec file name matches package name
so: specfile name PASS
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
--- Comment #6 from R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com ---
license contained in COPYING
GPLv2+
but noted as:
License: GPLv2 in the .spec file
Greg, could you please update this?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
62 matches
Mail list logo
